Karnataka High Court
The Agricultural Produce Market ... vs B.S.Ravindrakumar on 13 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46619
CRL.A No. 259 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 259 OF 2015 (A)
BETWEEN:
THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE
MARKET COMMITTEE
T. NARASIPURA - 571124
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
SMT. A. SOWBHAGYA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SWAROOP T., ADV.)
AND:
B. S. RAVINDRAKUMAR
PROPRIETOR OF:
M/S GMS RICE MILL,
SRP ROAD, BANNUR ROAD,
T. NARASIPURA - 571124.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N (BY SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADV.)
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:11.12.2014 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE SR. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, TIRUMAKUDALU
NARASIPURA (T.NARASIPURA), IN C.C.NO.466/10 -
ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 114 & 116 OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING
(REGULATION) COMMITTEE ACT 1966.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46619
CRL.A No. 259 of 2015
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Appellant in this appeal is assailing the judgment dated 11th December 2014 passed in CC No.466 of 2010 by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, T Narsipura (for short hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.
3. The complainant filed complaint against accused and section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging that the accused has violated sections 65(2A), 65A of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation & Development) Act, 1966 (for short "KAPM (R&D) Act") and has committed offence punishable under sections 114 and 116 of the KAPM (R&D) Act.
4. After taking cognizance, case of registered in CC No.466 of 2010. Summons was issued, in response to summons accused appeared before the court and enlarged on bail. The substance of accusation was recorded. The same was -3- NC: 2025:KHC:46619 CRL.A No. 259 of 2015 HC-KAR read over and explained to the accused, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove the guilt of the accused, Secretary of Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee was examined as PW1 and one witness was examined as PW2. Six documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P6. On closure of complainant side evidence, statement of the accused under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused denied the evidence of complainant witnesses and filed written statement about his say on the case. In the written statement, he had explained that he had returned the rice to farmers after hulling and he had not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. The accused has not led any defence evidence. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial court acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 114 and 116 of KAPM (R&D) Act. Further, the trial court passed the order to register a separate Criminal Misc. case against the complaint under section 250 of Code of Criminal Procedure and issue summons to appear before the court on 20th February 2015 and show cause why he should not be -4- NC: 2025:KHC:46619 CRL.A No. 259 of 2015 HC-KAR directed to pay compensation to the accused for instituting a complaint without reasonable cause. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal and the observation made by the trial court, the complainant has preferred this appeal.
6. Sri Swaroop T, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant/complainant, would submit that though appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal, he would not press the same, but, he is questioning only as to the direction given by the trial court to register a separate Criminal Misc. case against the complainant under section 250 of Code of Criminal Procedure and to issue notice to appear before the court. He would further submit that the trial court has arrived at a wrong conclusion that the accused being the Rice Mill owner has not obtained license from the Marketing Committee, and also there is no provision under KAPM (R&D) Act to issue license to a Rice Mill owner and further the trial Court has arrived at the wrong conclusion that even if he transported rice to other states, he is not liable to pay the market fee as he is not a trader under the KAPM (R&D) Act and these wrong conclusions compelled the trial court to order to register a criminal miscellaneous case -5- NC: 2025:KHC:46619 CRL.A No. 259 of 2015 HC-KAR against the complainant under section 250 of Code of Criminal Procedure to pay compensation to the accused. Such an action of the trial court was absolutely uncalled for and the observation and action instituted against the complainant would only demoralize the complainant from discharging his duties, honestly and faithfully under the KAPM (R&D) Act. Hence, he prays to struck down the said observation made by the trial court. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow the appeal.
7. On the other hand, Sri Nataraju, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that this court may pass suitable/appropriate orders considering the submission of the appellant counsel.
8. I have examined the materials placed before me. The trial court has passed the judgment of acquittal. The order portion reads as under:
"Order The accused is by acquitted u/sec.255(2) OffCr.P.C. For the offence punishable under section 114 and 116 of agricultural produce marketing ( Regulation) Committee act 1966. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:46619 CRL.A No. 259 of 2015 HC-KAR Bail Bond executed by the accused and his surety stand cancelled.
Office is directed to register a separate C.Misc. against the complainant under section 250 Cr.P.C. and issue summons to appear before the court on 20.20.2015 and show cause why he should not be directed to pay compensation to the accused for instituting a complaint without reasonable cause."
9. It is relevant to mention here as provisions of section 141 of KAPM (R&D) Act. The same reads as under:
"141. Protection to persons acting in good faith.- No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall be instituted against any person for anything one or intended to be done in good faith under this Act, or the rules, regulations or the bye-laws."
10. In the case on hand, complaint filed by N Lingaraj Urs, APMC, T Narsipura on 27th February 2004. That on 21st July 2012, Boranna, the then Secretary of APMC was examined as PW1. At the time of adducing the evidence, the age of PW1 was shown as 57 years. Now he is retired from service. Hence, no purpose will be served in issuing show-cause notice to the present Secretary of T.Narasipura APMC. Apart from this, the trial court has not assigned any reasons as to whether the -7- NC: 2025:KHC:46619 CRL.A No. 259 of 2015 HC-KAR complainant has filed his complaint in good faith or not. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case and also keeping in mind, the provisions of section 141 of KAPM (R&D) Act, it is just proper to allow this appeal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. Appeal is partly allowed;
ii. Judgment of acquittal dated 11th December 2014 passed in CC No.466 of 2010 by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, T Narsipura, is confirmed.
iii. The order passed by the trial court regarding issuance of direction "to register criminal miscellaneous against the complainant under section 250 of Code of Criminal Procedure and issue summons to appear before the court on 20th February 2015 and show cause why he should not be directed to pay compensation to -8- NC: 2025:KHC:46619 CRL.A No. 259 of 2015 HC-KAR the accused for instituting a complaint without reasonable cause", is set aside. iv. Registry to send the coy of this judgment along with Trial Court records to the trial Court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49